Is the Obama Administration pushing for high gas prices

Post Reply New Topic

The liberal media tried to bury this story as quick as Energy Sec. Chu suggested unleaded prices would solve our energy problems forcing people to buy alternative energy cars and sub compacts. Well that dog don’t hunt, this is America, not Europe. I think Obama ran for office in the wrong country because beyond food, wine, tourism and other Euro products the majority of us don’t envision Euro anything. Especially $7 gas. When unleaded hit $3 a gallon many people began to cut back on spending because they spent a fortune just to commute to work and travel daily.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp? ... as-prices/

"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." – Steven Chu
http://nation.foxnews.com/gas-prices/20 ... gas-prices

Haha, for a right wing nut you are not into the free market it seems. Your oil prices are not realistic, so you do need a dose of realism with them.

The high "profits" the oil companies are reporting is largely due to the fact they haven't been able to spend any money on drilling because of Obama's moratorium in defience of two court orders.

Alright, what were their record profits in 2009 due to?

Partly that was due to speculators, there are multiple kinds of speculators though.

There are ones like the airlines that want to lock in as low of a price per gallon as possible. Then there are people out secure their retirement (i.e. commodities help secure oneself against inflation), then we have the ones out to make money.

High gasoline prices would be an incentive to develop alternative energy sources not based on the burning of hydrocarbons. As long as burning petrol and natural gas is relatively cheap we will not get to non-hydrocarbon energy.

ruveyn

I support a gas tax... I don't, however, support what they intend to use that money for... especially High Speed Rail

I don't know about but Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Eni, TOTAL, or BHP Billiton, but I do know that just as much as China spend on green tech, China is investing even more money in their own oil companies, 3 of which are on the top20 largest energy companies in the world... as does Russia with its Gazprom, Brazil's Petrobras, Saudi Aramco, Petronas, Venezuela's Petrobas de Venezuela, China National Petroleum Corporation and the National Iranian Oil Company. (There is a reason these companies are the largest energy companies in the world...). No US-based companies are in the TOP 5 energy companies in the world.

It should also be noted that we don't invest in our oil companies anywhere near these countries who follow the "State Capitalism" model. At least they are not nationalized with public dollars or work on behalf of the Government to empower the ruling regime. I don't consider Tax-Breaks subsidizing... Subsidizing in my opinion is when you give them money to prop their business up (which... without it, would not exist in its current form, or would go bankrupt). Giving any company taxbreaks is helping them to stay competitive and helps them stay in America.

Curious- why?

Yes.

I'd be happier with a higher gasoline tax as well - in fact, I voted for Anderson in 1980 partly because of his gasoline tax proposal. However, I also agree with MarketAndChurch that it shouldn't be earmarked, but rather should be used to reduce federal income taxes, perhaps through a larger standard exemption. That would encourage conservation without adding to the economic pain.

I'll just be honest right off the back, I support HSR or fast heavy-rail on a local level. One running from Portland to Vancouver BC is far more viable and realistic then one from LA to SF. I think something like the "BART" that we have here in the SF Bay area is exportable to most metropolitans in the country(Is the BART heavy rail? Fast rail? what would one call it?)

Give me a framework to work within because it's a huge topic. I'd personally prefer to limit it down to to implementation of it in the USA, specifically in the State of California's attempt to connect LA and SF, only because I'm more aware of what is going on there. But each places experience with HSR is unique, and I don't really have as much antipathy against the ones in France or Japan. It works in some places, and where it works... it works well. I feel the same conditions that make it possible and a bit more sustainable in France and Japan are not met here in most parts of the country.

In some places like the NE corridor, density is inevitble and makes mass-transit work(especially trains like the Acela line), and work well. Most of the country isn't set up like the North East, and re-arranging things to work would require a total disregard for liberal smart-growth policies, and conservative distaste for a very powerful and activist government to re-arrange people and cities to make this work.

I can make the case for why it won't work in california if you'd like. but which aspect of HSR would you like me to talk about, or you could even bring up your own points in favor or against it. I'll comment more tomorrow, or possibly make a new thread for it because it is a very interesting topic.

I don't really have any strong feelings on the matter, I was just curious why you were against it, I think you are the first person I have met who is in opposition. Then again most people I speak to about it don't have any feelings on it either

BART is "light rail", as are most commuter lines, because they don't carry heavy cargoes. A rail car full of passengers is much lighter than a rail car full of coal.


I'm opposed to Federal funding of high speed rail as well. It's not that I'm opposed to high speed rail so much as I think the Federal government will do it wrong. To get high speed rail that actually works for the users, it would be more effective to have it be operated by a private company which is dependent on satisfying users for its revenue.

I wouldn't necessarily object to some government help on arranging the necessary rights of way.

I'm not against private investment in HSR but the government should maintain oversight on it as I don't really trust companies to adhere perfectly to safety standards if it means they can save a few dollars here and there

Some degree of safety regulations are a legitimate function of government, in my opinion. I would think that existing rail regulations would be sufficient, but I could be wrong.

Definitely. I think HSR may have some characteristics that require some 'unique' regulations. I'm curious now so I'll do some reading on the subject

The government is one of the most frequent violators of safety standards. Who will watch the watchmen? Who will guard the guardians?

Think of the space shuttle program. NASA is an egregious violator of safety standards.

ruveyn